What Progressive Redistribution Is For

by Will Wilkinson on December 15, 2009

It’s terrific to see Dalton Conley, the dean for the social sciences at NYU, write this in the American Prospect:

Inequality — and its consequences — is the wrong target. It’s time for progressives to spend less time trying to prove the effects of inequality on health, growth, and politics and instead start focusing on opportunity for those shut out entirely.

Preach it brother. He even calls inequality “epiphenomenal”! Sweet.

Bruce Bartlett adds some generally agreeable commentary on Conley’s essay. But let me pick on one little piece:

Implicitly, liberals tend to believe the pie is fixed. But, generally speaking, it isn’t. A rising tide does tend to lift all boats even if those at the top get lifted a lot more. But Conley is also right to ridicule the view, common among many conservatives, that enriching the wealthy somehow automatically benefits the poor. That’s obviously nonsense. But neither does it follow that there is no limit to how much we can soak the rich without average people suffering some of the consequences. We really don’t want the rich spending all their time figuring out how to hide their wealth from the tax man or engaging in conspicuous consumption; we’d rather that they invested their wealth in businesses that will increase their wealth but also create jobs and income for the rest of us, too.

For this reason, I have always been more sympathetic to programs that aid the poor than other conservatives. It’s not so much that it’s the right thing to do as that it’s a necessary price that has to be paid to maintain democracy, open markets, private property, a stable currency and a tax system that doesn’t punish success too much. To be sure, there is a heavy price to be paid when social welfare programs go too far. But at the same time I don’t think the social Darwinist, Randian state in which people are left to die if they don’t work is the one that maximizes growth or well-being for the producer class.

I wish Bruce wouldn’t perpetuate caricatures of so-called social Darwinists and Randians, but that’s not my concern here. I want to address the claim that “programs that aid the poor” aren’t so much “the right thing to do” as “a necessary price that has to be paid to maintain democracy, open markets, private property, a stable currency and a tax system that doesn’t punish success too much.” I don’t agree with this.

All the items that Bruce says programs for the poor help buy are immensely valuable parts of the very best kind of actually-existing social order. If programs that aid the poor are a necessary element of that kind of order, it’s worth asking why they are. Here’s one idea I favor. The failure to have such programs violates a widely-shared sense of fairness, reciprocity, mutuality, solidarity, or what have you. That violation endangers many peoples’ sense of the larger system’s legitimacy. That, in turn, threatens the larger system’s peaceful stability — that is, threatens to disqualify it from counting as an order at all. If poorer people were just holding richer people hostage (“Nice system of private property and open markets you have here. Would hate to see something happen to it.”), it would seem right to see the ransom as a “price” to pay for all these other great liberal goods. But I don’t think this is the best way to think of it. One could likewise see relatively low tax rates as the “price” the less wealthy have to pay to guarantee access to jobs and the many other goods of innovation and wealth creation. But that’s not the best way to think of it either. I think it’s better to evaluate socio-economic systems holistically and say that, since they are both elements of the best feasible scheme of institutions, aid to the poor and relatively low tax rates are both demands of justice — “the right thing to do.”

  • brucemoomaw
    "Thus to me it seems like whether this general sense of justice comes from individualistic, social or biological factors, it's hard to describe it as anything else but extortion from the better off." No, it's "extortion" from the luckier -- which is, to put it mildly, a different thing. And trying to redefine the sense of justice itself -- that is, our basic ability to imagine ourselves in someone else's shoes -- to fit a Randian idea that selfishness is a virtue is a psychopath's errand. As for the idea that forced government redistribution is never a virtue: let's go to the extreme. If someone has a life preserver which he refuses to throw to a drowning man for some petty reason, is it immoral to interfere with his property rights and throw it yourself? If your family is starving through no fault of your own and someone else has a bloated supply of food through luck, is it immoral to interfere with his property rights by stealing some of the food? Since, in a purely libertarian paradise, everyone will benefit equally from those goods that are provided by the government (the military, the legal system, roads, etc.), shouldn't the richest and the poorest citizen pay exactly the same total amount of taxes? If your answer to any of these questions is "no", you've obviously opened the doorway to accepting some degree of government assistance to poorer citizens, and the question becomes the entirely different one of how far it should go before it becomes practically and morally counterproductive. I really can't believe that I have to explain this to adults. Fortunately, most adults (including, it seems, Wilkinson) have more common sense.
  • Toni H
    According to what I understand as a psychology major, your view of redistribution as touching "people's deep sense of fairness" is mostly right. Yet I'm not sure why you refuse to analyse that sense of fairness to actually get to the root cause of why we have redistribution.

    I think Ken Binmore's work here is the most important synthesis of Rawls, Kant and game theory, attempting to answer exactly that - where justice comes from. (Why haven't you read this seminal stuff dude, it's dead on about the stuff you write about daily!)

    From what I understand, that sense of justice *is* after all predominantly a product of implicit social negotiation. You seem to miss the fact that e.g. in Russia the oligarchs are very popular and thus people's view of justice has a major game theoretic component to it as well, with people's appetite for justice greatly rising when there exists political institutions that make demanding redistribution much easier.

    The other factor might come from biology, I don't know, but if that's the case, it just adds fuel to the fire. Why has evolution given us this sense of fairness? We know there's no theory of group evolution that could reduce this sort of selection to the better success of social groups, so it most likely is an invention that gives rewards mainly to individuals.

    Thus to me it seems like whether this general sense of justice comes from individualistic, social or biological factors, it's hard to describe it as anything else but extortion from the better off.

    But ignoring people's sense of justice and where it comes from is just begging the question!
  • Vangel
    I think Ken Binmore's work here is the most important synthesis of Rawls, Kant and game theory, attempting to answer exactly that - where justice comes from. (Why haven't you read this seminal stuff dude, it's dead on about the stuff you write about daily!)

    I must confess that I found Binmore's attempt to be very unconvincing so I stopped reading his book, Game Theory and the Social Contract, after a few hours. The book now sits in a box in my parent's basement because it is too unimportant to replace most of the books that are on my shelves.

    From what I understand, that sense of justice *is* after all predominantly a product of implicit social negotiation.

    I think that the obvious is being missed. When we have a voluntary transaction both sides view it as a win and as fair or the transaction would not take place. In an unhampered market there would not be much injustice unless fraud was involved.

    You seem to miss the fact that e.g. in Russia the oligarchs are very popular and thus people's view of justice has a major game theoretic component to it as well, with people's appetite for justice greatly rising when there exists political institutions that make demanding redistribution much easier.

    To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail. Binmore is biased by his interest in game theory so he tries to apply it even when there are more appropriate ways to do the analysis.

    The other factor might come from biology, I don't know, but if that's the case, it just adds fuel to the fire. Why has evolution given us this sense of fairness? We know there's no theory of group evolution that could reduce this sort of selection to the better success of social groups, so it most likely is an invention that gives rewards mainly to individuals.

    OK. So you don't understand evolution or biology well enough to explain certain things. Does game theory really help you improve your understanding?

    I also suggest that if you are interested in the biological basis of justice you might wish to look at the classical argument that thymotic volatility and the demand for recognition would undermine any redistribution scheme created by government. Redistribution schemes are not only unstable from an economic point of view but are also unstable from a psychological point of view.

    Thus to me it seems like whether this general sense of justice comes from individualistic, social or biological factors, it's hard to describe it as anything else but extortion from the better off.

    I agree. It is extortion. And it cannot be justified by any moral or ethical argument.

    But ignoring people's sense of justice and where it comes from is just begging the question!

    As I noted above. Look to better understand the debate by trying to examine the thymos issue.
  • SumGi
    think that the obvious is being missed. When we have a voluntary transaction both sides view it as a win and as fair or the transaction would not take place. In an unhampered market there would not be much injustice unless fraud was involved.


    So you are saying that their conception of justice is wrong because it does not match your conception of justice.

    That's not an argument. You have made no argument here that their conception of justice is wrong or that your is right. This is a troubling trend I've noticed in your comments.

    Another example:
    I agree. It is extortion. And it cannot be justified by any moral or ethical argument.


    Then how do you explain the existence of moral and ethical arguments that seek to justify it? You don't claim that there is no good argument, or sound argument, or ultimately true argument. You claim there are no arguments. You are working off the assumption that your beliefs and intuitions are self-evidently true and then trying to argue a point from there. You first have to justify and prove to the other parties that your beliefs are true, they are not working off of the same assumption.
  • stephen
    Personally, I prefer the price to pay to maintain a kind of order argument. For one thing, it has the virtue of being honest.

    Second it takes into account the fact that "programs to help the poor" are primarily a mechanism in which rival upper class factions jockey for social status and political power. Notice how the "rich" don't want to have anything to do with the "poor". They don't live next to them, associate with them, or send their children to school with them. Hell, the middle class wants even less to do with the poor then the rich folks, and are keenly aware of how the upper class uses them as a proxy for political battles. This is best illustrated every time some "affordable housing" project gets proposed for some "lower middle class" neighborhood far away from any of the major NAs, where all of the wealthy and politically connected people who control city council live. Without fail, the same group always favors it, the other always opposes it. I don't even have to tell you which is which.

    In addition, appeals to justice have a strangely circular ring to them: "Why should we have programs to help the poor? Justice. Okay, what is justice? A society that helps the poor." Not to convincing.
  • Vangel
    Personally, I prefer the price to pay to maintain a kind of order argument. For one thing, it has the virtue of being honest.

    First, there is no evidence that state transfer programs are more effective in keeping order than a system that uses self reliance, personal responsibility, and private charity.

    Second, it is neither virtuous nor honest when redistribution schemes are funded by the use of government power to take from one group and give to another.
  • DMonteith
    First, there is no evidence that state transfer programs are more effective in keeping order than a system that uses self reliance, personal responsibility, and private charity.

    This isn't even wrong.
  • Vangel
    You are correct for a change. The argument is not wrong. As I wrote above, there is no evidence to show that state transfer programs are more effective in keeping order than a system that uses self reliance, personal responsibility, and private charity.
  • Vangel
    Our great grandparents would have similarly been shocked at the idea of the vote for women. Further back in the tree our family would have laughed at the idea of abolishing slavery.

    That is not entirely true. Most people opposed slavery on moral and ethical grounds as they should have. Slavery was made possible by the state and was of primary benefit to those that were in power and wrote the laws.

    The "right" thing in society varies over time which means you cannot judge today on yesterday's standards, and vice versa.

    I disagree. It is never right to initiate force against anyone or not to keep one's word. When it comes down to it this issue is about the use of force. Without the power of government, people would not choose to fund the idiotic transfer systems if they had a choice.

    Just read etiquette books over a range of eras and you will see how "common sense" in society changes.

    Conventions and tastes may change but you can't use that to justify theft and the initiation of force against people.
  • Vangel
    But Conley is also right to ridicule the view, common among many conservatives, that enriching the wealthy somehow automatically benefits the poor.

    I find this an interesting statement. It is only true in cases where the rich get richer in a non-market environment where wealth is obtained in ways other than by voluntary exchange. But in a relatively unhampered market, where wealth is obtained by competing for consumer's patronage wealth only comes to those that help meet consumer demands. Sam Walton, Michael Dell and Bill Gates got rich because they did help the poor by lowering their costs and providing them with low cost products that were in demand.

    I think it’s better to evaluate socio-economic systems holistically and say that, since they are both elements of the best feasible scheme of institutions, aid to the poor and relatively low tax rates are both demands of justice — “the right thing to do.”

    The problem comes when the state intrudes and creates redistribution schemes that are not the right thing to do. While individuals in the West have never had problems helping the poor they did not consider it 'right' to help all of the poor equally. Our great-grandparents would have laughed at the idea of paying able bodied men to stay home or young women to support children fathered by different men out of wedlock. The bottom line is that taxation is theft and transfer programs cannot be justified in a system that respects property rights. Governments need to be as small and limited in power as possible and do not belong in the wealth redistribution business. History shows us that unhampered markets are best able to lift the most people out of poverty the fastest so we cannot even use the 'practical' angle to support the pro-government agenda that most people are way too comfortable with.
  • DickensianAspect
    While individuals in the West have never had problems helping the poor


    Go read some Dickens and come back here with that. Charity has never alleviated the hardships poverty. The most charity can do or ever has done is prolong the life of the destitute or scooped a handful out of poverty based on being cute urchins or tragic women.

    Charity is a band aid on a bullet wound. It's token pity, not aid.
  • Jay J
    Taxation is theft, but if you think there should be any government at all, then this is a necessary evil, yes?

    And, the government is the one that establishes property rights, yes?

    So theft is a necessity is setting up property rights... oh, well, that doesn't sound so good, but it seems to be the situation we're stuck with. Unless you want to say that property rights sprang from the butt of Zeus.

    Whatever history shows about how best to lift people out of poverty is one thing, I mean, it's an empirical question. But this stuff about taxation being theft and transfer programs being unjustified in a system that respects property rights, there's where it gets hairy.
  • Vangel
    Taxation is theft, but if you think there should be any government at all, then this is a necessary evil, yes?

    One could argue this point by taking the Friedman/Rothbard approach but I won't go that far. I will simply point out that governments were given limited powers beyond which they should not venture. Redistributing wealth by establishing permanent transfer schemes is not one of the powers that the federal government was granted.

    And, the government is the one that establishes property rights, yes?

    No. I am with Jefferson on this issue. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

    So theft is a necessity is setting up property rights... oh, well, that doesn't sound so good, but it seems to be the situation we're stuck with. Unless you want to say that property rights sprang from the butt of Zeus.

    See Jefferson above. Governments are established to protect rights by the consent of the governed. They do not grant rights.

    Whatever history shows about how best to lift people out of poverty is one thing, I mean, it's an empirical question.


    It is what it is. Free people and unhampered markets create wealth and an increased standard of living. Central planning and the state are consumers, not creators, of wealth.

    But this stuff about taxation being theft and transfer programs being unjustified in a system that respects property rights, there's where it gets hairy.

    It does not. There is no power granted to the federal government to take money from one group of people to support other people. And there is no moral or ethical justification for theft.
  • Jay J
    Sooo, as long as the constitution grants powers to take money from people for X purpose, it is morally/ethically justified, but when it doesn't grant powers to take money from people for Y purpose, then that isn't morally/ethically justified? Is that what we're dealing with here?

    On Jefferson, the fact that he said it doesn't make it so, so if I reject what Jefferson said, then where does that leave us?
  • Vangel
    Sooo, as long as the constitution grants powers to take money from people for X purpose, it is morally/ethically justified, but when it doesn't grant powers to take money from people for Y purpose, then that isn't morally/ethically justified? Is that what we're dealing with here?

    What we are dealing with is a government that is doing what it was never empowered to do.

    On Jefferson, the fact that he said it doesn't make it so, so if I reject what Jefferson said, then where does that leave us?

    I do not expect a statist to agree with a Libertarian position. What we have is a difference of opinion. You believe that men are not free and can only hope for freedom that their political masters in the government grant them. I believe that governments are put into place to protect rights that men already have and cannot govern without consent of the people who granted them specified powers.
  • Jay J
    Vangel,

    You're retreating, please stop. I'm asking you what it is that makes one thing justified, and another unjustified. Actually what I'm doing is applying the logic you've already laid out, but apparently won't explicitly endorse once you see it shown to you in the abstract. So, why is it justified to take money from people for purposes codified in the constitution, but unjustified for purposes not codified in the constitution, when, after all, taxation is theft.

    As for the rest, I think a couple or three libertarians might object to you taking all to yourself the mantle of advancing the "Libertarian position" when actually what you're advancing seems to be sort of a knee-jerk needlessly meta libertarians position. I know you didn't explicitly state that yours is the only one, but to assume that I'm a statist based only on our short interaction, and that yours is the contrasted "libertarian position" seems to reveal a narrow understanding of how people form their policy views.
  • Jay J
    I mean cuz so far all you've given me is this:

    Property rights spring from the butt of Zeus, Jefferson tells us about it, so it's OK to steal people's hard-earned money, so long as a very small group of men draft a document saying it should the gains from this theft only go to protecting the property rights that spring from the butt of Zeus.
  • Vangel
    I don't understand your obsession with Zeus. You do not need to bring up religion to argue for natural rights because you can get there by reason. Given that it is clear that a person owns himself it is easy to support Jefferson's observation, that men have unalienable rights and that these include life, liberty and property. And it is not OK to steal people's hard earned money. All transactions should be voluntary and no include the initiation of force against any of the parties involved.
  • Jay J
    Zeus is not meant as a reference to religion, per se, but faith. You call it reason.. tomato-tomatoe.

    But I'm open to hearing how reason gets us there, just don't be offended if I suspect it's going to be akin to saying "property rights spring from the butt of Zeus."

    So, I don't know what you mean to say I own myself. Someone can come and lift me up and ship me off somewhere. You could just simply say you have a moral intuition that this aggressive behavior is wrong and leave it there, like I would, but it doesn't sound so indisputable when it's put that way, but it is more modest and up front.

    As for having a government, but not granting it coercive power, OK well you lost me..
  • Vangel
    So, I don't know what you mean to say I own myself.

    That seems to be the cause of your problem. The meaning could not be simpler. Men own their own bodies, pure and simple. That means that they own the proceeds of the labour done by those bodies. Instead of commenting out of ignorance I think that you need to go back and look to the works that were the great influences on people like Jefferson and on which those great words in the Declaration were based. You could start with Locke, who wrote:

    Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.

    It is obvious from reading Locke that his argument is not fully developed and has various contradictions that bother not only the statists but libertarians as well. To understand the argument better you might wish to read Jefferson and look to someone like Lysander Spooner. You may wish to look at Spooner's, letter to Congressman Thomas Bayard, or his essay, Natural Law. That said, your best bet may be to look to that great American anarchist, Murray Rothbard, and his essay, Introduction to Natural Law.

    As for having a government, but not granting it coercive power, OK well you lost me..

    You have to step away from your statist mindset. The government would not be permitted to initiate force. Its role would be limited to defence. (For the record, I have sympathy for the Spooner/Rothbard/Friedman arguments but won't go there on this thread.)
  • Jay J
    And even if you could get me to agree that I naturally own myself, I don't see how that would help in selling me on the point that I naturally own chunks of earth.
  • Jay J
    And even if you could get me to agree that I naturally own myself, I don't see how that would help in selling me on the point that I naturally own chunks of earth.
  • Olivia
    "Our great-grandparents would have laughed at the idea of paying able bodied men to stay home or young women to support children fathered by different men out of wedlock."

    Our great grandparents would have similarly been shocked at the idea of the vote for women. Further back in the tree our family would have laughed at the idea of abolishing slavery.
    The "right" thing in society varies over time which means you cannot judge today on yesterday's standards, and vice versa.
    Just read etiquette books over a range of eras and you will see how "common sense" in society changes.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: